DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 6/21/2024 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-14 are amended. Claims 15 and 16 are new.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRAPSCH (US 20140284011 A1) in view of NEAGU (US 20200039713 A1), and SPENDER (US 20190323177 A1).
For claim 1, KRAPSCH teaches a surface treated paper for use as a paper, board or paper product [abstract]. The examiner understands that the limitation of “A paper for use in a medical device package paper” is in the preamble and as such does not hold patentable weight. KRAPSCH teaches a surface treatment composition that uses polyamidoamine epichlorohydrin (PAE) [0263], glyoxylated polyacrylamide [0263], and starch [abstract]. This teaches the limitation of “said paper comprising polyamino amide epichlorohydrin (PAE) resin, glyoxylated polyacrylamide (G- PAM) and starch”. KRAPSCH further teaches the starch is added to the paper composition by at least 1250 g/metric ton (equivalent to at least 1.25 kg/tonne) based on the overall composition [0220]. This value overlaps the instant claims range of “and the amount of starch is 1-3 kg/tonne dry paper of”. KRAPSCH further teaches the PAE is added to the paper composition of between 300 to about 3500 g/metric ton (equivalent to 0.3 to about 3.5 kg/tonne) based on the overall composition [0220]. This value overlaps the instant claims range of “wherein the amount of PAE resin is 0.15-1.75 kg/tonne dry paper”. KRAPSCH does not teach the grammage or air resistance as measured by the ISO methods.
NEAGU teaches a packaging paper [0005] with starch, GPAM, and PAE [0060] similar to KRAPSCH. NEAGU teaches that the packaging container can have a grammage of between 20-100 g/m2 [0156] according to ISO 536 [0124]. This range overlaps the instant claim of “wherein the paper has a grammage measured according to ISO 536:2019 of 30-120 g/m2”. See MPEP 2144.05(I). NEAGU teaches the advantage of the bulk sheet is that the sandwiched material allows for high bending stiffness with low density [0030]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to try a grammage taught by NEAGU to produce a paper useful in packaging. One would be motivated to modify the grammage based on the high bending stiffness and low density as taught by NEAGU.
SPENDER teaches a packaging paper [0016] with starch [0012], GPAM (glyoxalated resin) [0082], and PAE [0082] similar to KRAPSCH. SPENDER teaches that the packaging container can have a GURLEY porosity of 18 seconds [0185] according to ISO 5636-5 [0065]. This value is within the instant range of “an air resistance measured according to ISO 5636-5: 2013 below 37 s”. SPENDER teaches the advantage of the invention is the renewable materials origin, biodegradable nature, and low toxicity allowing contact with food [0038]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the paper of KRAPSCH with the method SPENDER and expect a Gurley porosity of SPENDER given the similar composition. One would be motivated to modify paper of SPENDER based on the renewable materials origin, biodegradable nature, and low toxicity allowing contact with food as taught by SPENDER.
For claim 2, KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the GPAM is added at between 1.5 and 4 kg/t of dry paper [0348]. This range is within the instant range of “wherein the amount of G-PAM is 0.5-6.0 kg/tonne dry paper.
For claim 3 KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the PAE is added to the paper composition of between 300 to about 3500 g/metric ton (equivalent to 0.3 to about 3.5 kg/tonne) based on the overall composition [0220]. This value overlaps the instant claims range of “ “wherein the amount of PAE resin is 0.25-1.50 kg/tonne dry paper”.
For claim 4 KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the use of cationic GPAM [0262]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said G-PAM is cationic G-PAM”.
For claim 5 KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. SPENDER teaches the base paper can be a bleach kraft [0156]. This teaches the limitation of “which is a kraft paper, such as a machine glazed (MG) kraft paper”.
For claim 6 KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. SPENDER teaches the base paper can be a bleach kraft [0156]. This teaches the limitation of “which is bleached”.
For claim 7 KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. NEAGU teaches that the packaging container can have a grammage of between 20-100 g/m2 [0156] according to ISO 536 [0124]. This range closely encompasses the instant claim of “wherein the grammage measured according to ISO 536:2019 is 30-50 g/m2”.
For claim 8 KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. NEAGU teaches a density of 100 to 700 kg/m3 [0024] according to ISO 534 [0125]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the density measured according to ISO 534:2011 is at least 600 kg/m3.
For claim 12 KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. NEAGU teaches the fiber is sourced from softwood pulp [0042]. This teaches the limitation of “which is formed from a softwood pulp”.
For claim 13 KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the entire furnish is made from virgin pulp fiber [0056]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein at least 75% by dry weight of the fibers of the paper are virgin fibers”.
For claim 14 KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. SPENDER teaches the paper of the invention is used in medical device packaging [0016]. This teaches the limitation of “A medical device package comprising a paper according to claim 1”.
For claim 15 KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. SPENDER teaches the fiber is sourced from softwood pulp and hardwood pulp [0120]. This teaches the limitation of “which is formed from a mixture of a softwood pulp and a hardwood pulp”.
For claim 16 KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the entire furnish is made from virgin pulp fiber [0056]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein at least 90% by dry weight of the fibers of the paper are virgin fibers”.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRAPSCH (US 20140284011 A1), NEAGU (US 20200039713 A1), and SPENDER (US 20190323177 A1) in view of KINAST (US 20170350074 A1).
For claim 9 KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH does not teach the use of Cobb 60 to validate the final paper. KINAST teaches a treated paper with a coating of starch [0103] similar to KRAPSCH. KINAST also teaches the starch coated paper has a Cobb value of 18 g/m2. This value is within the instant claim range of “wherein the Cobb 60 s value measured according to ISO 535:2014 of at least one side of the paper is below 40 g/m2”. KINAST teaches the advantage of the starch coating improves the printability and prevents the paper from curling after drying [0070]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to expect a similar result, Cobb 60, of KINAST from the composition of KRAPSCH. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved the printability and prevention of the paper from curling after drying as taught by KINAST.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRAPSCH (US 20140284011 A1), NEAGU (US 20200039713 A1), and SPENDER (US 20190323177 A1) in view of KOSONEN (US 20140338849 A1).
For claim 10 KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. NEAGU does not teach a tensile strength for the resulting paper. KOSONEN teaches a similar papermaking furnish made of cellulose, cationic polyacrylamide, and starch [0057]. KOSONEN further teaches the advantage of the treatment is the reduced need for release chemical due to the additives used. KOSONEN also teaches the tensile index according to ISO 1924-3 is greater than 100 Nm/g [Fig 2]. This range is within the range of the instant claim of “wherein the geometrical tensile index measured according to ISO 1924-3:2005 is at least 50 Nm/g”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to expect a similar result, tensile strength, of KOSONEN from the composition of KRAPSCH. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the reduced need for release chemical due to the additives used as taught by KOSONONEN.
For claim 11 KRAPSCH, NEAGU, and SPENDER teach the paper of claim 1, as above. NEAGU does not teach a wet tensile strength for the resulting paper. KOSONEN teaches a similar papermaking furnish made of cellulose, cationic polyacrylamide, and starch [0057]. KOSONEN further teaches the advantage of the treatment is the reduced need for release chemical due to the additives used. KOSONEN also teaches the wet tensile index according to ISO 1924-3 is 10.8 Nm/g [Fig 2]. This value is within the range of the instant claim of “wherein the geometrical wet tensile index measured according to ISO 1924-3:2005 is at least 10 Nm/g”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to expect a similar result, tensile strength, of KOSONEN from the composition of KRAPSCH. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the reduced need for release chemical due to the additives used as taught by KOSONONEN.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748